True, indeed. They have that first call logged but their analysts claim it was a call from Sherlock Holmes to then IBM chief Thomas Watson....something Cheney wants to move on.
They've even got the first call logged: " Watson, come here I need you!", they are really that good! And you thought American Intelligence agencies were bumbling idiots who couldn't predict disastrous events if our lives depended on it.
So 49 square miles and 750,000 residents willo be served by a network rollout that costs only 6 - 8 million to initially build and only 15 million for 10 years. But the cost of a connection is 20 per month for 1.0 mb/sec. So if 1/3 of the residents sign up the network pays for itself in 2 months? Some of these numbers have got to be misstated. Or SF just got a real raw deal.
Of course, I wasn't actually proposing that we do that - it was a post of despair. Basically, a review of the history of Modern Intelligence / Law Enforcement shows that this type of law is both counterproductive for society( as you note, with the push for even more draconian laws ) and unnecessary. All the necessary FACTS were already known about the 9/11 hijackers. All the facts about Iraq's weapons programs, about aluminum tubes about Niger about blahblahblah. Even some facts that weren't facts, just for good measure. Having more data, and more access to that data won't produce anything useful - collecting information STRATEGICALLY, by trained personnel who know how to assess information works. Trusting that intel - or the professionalism of the on-the-ground agents by the higher-up managers is where the failure lies, all the analysis points to this. Not listening to the field agents' assessments. Knowing better because you're a higher-up. Gathering heaps of data and analysing them will yield something - just not the right thing, because we don't know how things relate to each other. Some combinations are suspicious but meaningless, like cloud figures - you see the charging lion, but he's a phantom. Some things look benign, but they are deadly. Software might help find patterns, it will find patterns - but they will be patterns that programmers, or even worse middle managers - think to look for, for purposes that have nothing to do with terrorism. They will look for dissenters. Ultimately, they will undercut and destroy the good field agents and empower the short-cutters, the goons. So, yeah, you are right the "idea" I offered won't "work" because it was intended to point out the futility of their method and my utter exasperation with the thoughtlessness of our elected officials. They are crazy.
We should insure that we make this data gathering absolutely as broad as possible, so that there will be so much data that none of us can function. This will make it obvious that total control over the flow of information and total access to petabytes of emails and phone taps of my pizza order - to a pizzaria run by an Arab with a second cousin on an Al-Quaida cell phone call history - DON"T aid law enforcement. At all. Then maybe when we come to our senses we can take back control of our government from the paranoids on both sides of the political spectrum and do something sensible.
Not really. I haven't used Windows as a personal Operating System since 3.11. I have primarily used Macs - System 7 - 10.3, and I can give you lots of Mac software ideas. Can't tell you anything about Windows specific apps. This doesn't mean you are wrong about the poster, but you are wrong about the likelihood of a person being computer savvy and not knowing windows. If the person is a graphics pro or a creative type they are likely quite up to speed about the web formats and programs. This shouldn't be taken to mean that I don't know anything about Windows since 3.11 - I have administered Windows installations - but I can't tell you what programs are cool on Windows.
The business strategy is not strictly finance or product, and the proper person for the CEO position is the one that best understands and represents the strategy - marketing, client relations, team leadership, growth areas. Just knowing who was trained for what is not going to answer this question. Who can inspire a team of coders on rewrite? Who can bring opposing views together and get the best out of everyone? You need to rethink the position in light of what the challenges to the business are, not what specialty the parties studied. That said, finance guys are not always the best choice for start-ups.
The idea that tech innovation is dead implies that we will now recycle the same tech in slightly modified form, because we have discovered every useful thing. I THINK NOT. What is more likely is that Mr. Donofrio suffers from failure of the imagination. Usually, when someone make a claim this outsized and this ludicrous, the next big thing is literally right around the corner. Mr. Donofrio can't see it - maybe none of us can. But it will come, and its implications may be good or may be bad - tech is like that, but it won't stop until we can control matter directly with our minds:-D
I don't believe that farmers are to be helped by this. Agribusinesses may need these robots so that they can spray toxics and harvest without fear of lawsuits for exposure, but are these going to be cheaper than the undocumented laborers that currently do most of the hard farm work? I don't think so. Farmers, and people in general are likely to be displaced, not assisted.
Afterall there's a reason why the US did get rid of a general draft after 73 and there's also a reason why they try not to expose coffins to the media today. In respect to other decisions the ultimate goal is to keep the general public out of warfare, because that's what made the Vietnam war fail in the end.
While I agree with most of what you say, the Vietnam War failed in the end, as the Iraq War is failing now, because it was an untenable, and unwinnable venture from the start. Public support eroded only after people realized this. Like Iraq today, Vietnam was essentially seen by the local population as an occupation, never a popular or sustainable position. The way we saw it and the way the Vietnamese saw it was completely different, and, at the end of the day our intentions don't translate as well as our on the ground actions. That said, your position that the professional army is a way to free the government from the need for public support, and eliminate a touch-point for open rebellion, as some of the 60's and early 70's protest became, is unassailable.
The history of labels relations with their artists is not a happy one. You probably know that, as well. Certaainly music labels have far more costs than most outside observers or artists take note of,but the industry's record of transparency with regard to costs and royalties has been abysmal. Most artists sign contracts that are horribly tilted in favor of the music labels, and successful ones always seem to renegotiate these to fairer ones. But my overall point would be that the system needs to be devised to fairly compensate artists and producers, and I don't think the producers are up to the task. Artists would probably be unfair, as well.
I don't know if this is the right price, and the details need refinement, but in a word, yes. This is a good idea, but there needs to be a mechanism for artists to get adequately compensated. The notion that the RIAA members would get to decide how the artists got paid out of this is far more frightening than P2P. The record executives used to be thought of as close to mafiosi, but we now know they are much,much worse.
Not connecting to the Internet at all is even safer than dial up, and not even having a computer practically guarantees that you won't get spyware and malware. And what good is that? Your friend's advice is ludicrous. Use proper security. Don't cruise the net as root, or the admin user on a windows box. If you have to use Windows as your OS get a real firewall product, hardware even better than software, don't run unnecessary services, don't use IE unless its for the MS site itself. Don't use Outlook. Keep your system patched. Avoid sites like the free game and pr0n sites that are forever infesting computers. Get a useful book on security. Keep proper backups so that you can recover if all else fails, then relax and enjoy the experience. The time you'll save will pay for most of your outlays.
Nothing on Windows is a good idea:-). Conversely MySQL on anything is a fair idea, though I admit to a Postgres tendency. If any of that meant something to you, you are sick.
The beauty of the Internet is that it creates a reliable network for advanced services on top of an unreliable (or unknown reliability) network. In short the telcos want to do what the telcos always wanted to do, prove that packet switched networks are costly and unreliable by MAKING them so - VOIP works best when it isn't discriminated against, as does everything else. The telcos goal is to discriminate against services outside their control, they could work out a deal with other telcos to account for internetwork traffic by tracking the bits by network address. They would rather charge Skype for 'using the network' so that they can sell BellSouth branded VOIP, then set the router to slow Skype traffic unless Skype pays up. The real answer is to limit the telcos to infrastructure and prohibit them from offering services. They won't like this, because it isn't sexy. The old Al Gore metaphor (I know, it drove me crazy, too) of the Information Superhighway is actually apt. The Network is a public infrastructure, like a road or navigable river, and it needs to be 'regulated' like one, which means that companies who want to own and operate the public networks need to be restricted in how they can control them. Some think this is an unfair intrusion on the rights of ownership of these companies, who have all this shareholder money invested. They forget that until very recently the telcos were all guaranteed profits in exchange for the regulation that they were subjected to, and these networks were all paid for - every pole, switch, etc overseen by State PUCs. Shareholders had very little risk until the late 90's. Basically, until a couple of years ago these companies couldn't threaten to do what BellSouth is attempting. Most likely the moves are a signal that BellSouth, in its deregulated environment, is making poor decisions and is grabbing for whatever income it can, which means it will probably slowly sink. This isn't necessarily a good thing, or necessarily a bad - but a lot of damage to the public can be done.
My understanding is that I have paid for a specific download and upload rate from my provider. That rate allows whatever content I download - iTunes or Limewire, applications and product updates. My Understanding is that Apple pays for their connection to the internet, as well, and that there is some level of service ( in bits/sec) that they pay for. So where is this - "they didn't pay us" The transmission of the bits has been paid for, whether those bits were html pages or mp3s or program updates is irrelevant to the discussion.
This is all the outcome of the FCC decision not to apply the telecom rules to the broadband market and to 'regulate' it as an information service. All of which ought to sway those who argue that regulation is unnecessary that their view is inadequate, regulation can be good or can be bad - it depends on the regulations, but the lack of regulation always gives the person or group in a power position the right to dictate terms. Some people may argue that you can always switch from BellSouth, but that isn't reality for most people - it is their only choice.
If telcos have mispricedthe service, for me or for the content providers, then the price for a level of service should, and will, rise, but charging to tilt the playing field (in favor of the paying content providers) will raise the barrier to entry, and ultimately it will foreclose certain types of internet use, specifically shared, non-commercial applications.
Well, that is the crux of the issue isn't it? What rights are inalienable to you as a human, and what rights are yours because government GRANTS them to you. The American premise WAS that all rights were inherently yours, and that government was granted powers from the people. I guess somewhere we lost that understanding, and we are slowly succumbing to the idea that the people have only the rights that they have been granted. All of these rights exist only insofar as the constituted authority respects them. Next time you hear someone say "the Constitution doesn't protect a right to...", or "it's not a right, but a privledge...", you are listening to someone running rough-shod over your rights.
The RIAA does not want to stop the digital revolution, they want to own it. Law is the way to own it. If you survey the history of the Commons, and of the Government"s willingness to transfer the commons to a specific, well-financed, private interest ( thereby legally robbing the original owners of their rights and interests)you would be less sanguine about the matter. Microsoft and Google are happy to abet the Chinese government in censorship, and not consider it evil, either, so what makes you think that any of the ECONOMIC interests are going to resist DRM? Who is going to lobby Congress on our behalf? And the Supremes? - they haven't been the same since Diana Ross went solo. They could easily drop Betamax. You only need to lose a right once before it ceases to be a right.
All uses that are not explicitly covered by copyright law are "fair use" under the 9th Amendment. Wherein the rights NOT explicitly given to Congress or the President are reserved to the People themselves. No explicit grant is required.
If you investigate Network Attached Storage you will find some solutions that are truly agnostic about the computer you connect with ( NAS solutions appear over tcp as a storage volume, without the need of a separate host computer) - if you get just a RAID enclosure you will need to attach it to a host computer. If you use a separate host computer you are better off with Linux as the OS (though you could use a Mac and still get the open-source advantages of SAMBA, NFS, what have you) and connect the Win box with SAMBA. NFS used to have a performance advantage over SAMBA, but that evaporated about four - five years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who have nothing to say will have nothing to fear!
True, indeed. They have that first call logged but their analysts claim it was a call from Sherlock Holmes to then IBM chief Thomas Watson....something Cheney wants to move on.
The restrictions you speak of are on a company's ability to arbitrarily FIRE YOU.
They've even got the first call logged: " Watson, come here I need you!", they are really that good! And you thought American Intelligence agencies were bumbling idiots who couldn't predict disastrous events if our lives depended on it.
So 49 square miles and 750,000 residents willo be served by a network rollout that costs only 6 - 8 million to initially build and only 15 million for 10 years. But the cost of a connection is 20 per month for 1.0 mb/sec. So if 1/3 of the residents sign up the network pays for itself in 2 months? Some of these numbers have got to be misstated. Or SF just got a real raw deal.
Yes, I would much rather pay a fee to be allowed to change channels. What makes them think that we will be happy with either option?
Of course, I wasn't actually proposing that we do that - it was a post of despair. Basically, a review of the history of Modern Intelligence / Law Enforcement shows that this type of law is both counterproductive for society( as you note, with the push for even more draconian laws ) and unnecessary. All the necessary FACTS were already known about the 9/11 hijackers. All the facts about Iraq's weapons programs, about aluminum tubes about Niger about blahblahblah. Even some facts that weren't facts, just for good measure. Having more data, and more access to that data won't produce anything useful - collecting information STRATEGICALLY, by trained personnel who know how to assess information works. Trusting that intel - or the professionalism of the on-the-ground agents by the higher-up managers is where the failure lies, all the analysis points to this. Not listening to the field agents' assessments. Knowing better because you're a higher-up. Gathering heaps of data and analysing them will yield something - just not the right thing, because we don't know how things relate to each other. Some combinations are suspicious but meaningless, like cloud figures - you see the charging lion, but he's a phantom. Some things look benign, but they are deadly. Software might help find patterns, it will find patterns - but they will be patterns that programmers, or even worse middle managers - think to look for, for purposes that have nothing to do with terrorism. They will look for dissenters. Ultimately, they will undercut and destroy the good field agents and empower the short-cutters, the goons. So, yeah, you are right the "idea" I offered won't "work" because it was intended to point out the futility of their method and my utter exasperation with the thoughtlessness of our elected officials. They are crazy.
We should insure that we make this data gathering absolutely as broad as possible, so that there will be so much data that none of us can function. This will make it obvious that total control over the flow of information and total access to petabytes of emails and phone taps of my pizza order - to a pizzaria run by an Arab with a second cousin on an Al-Quaida cell phone call history - DON"T aid law enforcement. At all. Then maybe when we come to our senses we can take back control of our government from the paranoids on both sides of the political spectrum and do something sensible.
Not really. I haven't used Windows as a personal Operating System since 3.11. I have primarily used Macs - System 7 - 10.3, and I can give you lots of Mac software ideas. Can't tell you anything about Windows specific apps. This doesn't mean you are wrong about the poster, but you are wrong about the likelihood of a person being computer savvy and not knowing windows. If the person is a graphics pro or a creative type they are likely quite up to speed about the web formats and programs. This shouldn't be taken to mean that I don't know anything about Windows since 3.11 - I have administered Windows installations - but I can't tell you what programs are cool on Windows.
The business strategy is not strictly finance or product, and the proper person for the CEO position is the one that best understands and represents the strategy - marketing, client relations, team leadership, growth areas. Just knowing who was trained for what is not going to answer this question. Who can inspire a team of coders on rewrite? Who can bring opposing views together and get the best out of everyone? You need to rethink the position in light of what the challenges to the business are, not what specialty the parties studied. That said, finance guys are not always the best choice for start-ups.
The idea that tech innovation is dead implies that we will now recycle the same tech in slightly modified form, because we have discovered every useful thing. I THINK NOT. What is more likely is that Mr. Donofrio suffers from failure of the imagination. Usually, when someone make a claim this outsized and this ludicrous, the next big thing is literally right around the corner. Mr. Donofrio can't see it - maybe none of us can. But it will come, and its implications may be good or may be bad - tech is like that, but it won't stop until we can control matter directly with our minds :-D
I don't believe that farmers are to be helped by this. Agribusinesses may need these robots so that they can spray toxics and harvest without fear of lawsuits for exposure, but are these going to be cheaper than the undocumented laborers that currently do most of the hard farm work? I don't think so. Farmers, and people in general are likely to be displaced, not assisted.
Afterall there's a reason why the US did get rid of a general draft after 73 and there's also a reason why they try not to expose coffins to the media today. In respect to other decisions the ultimate goal is to keep the general public out of warfare, because that's what made the Vietnam war fail in the end. While I agree with most of what you say, the Vietnam War failed in the end, as the Iraq War is failing now, because it was an untenable, and unwinnable venture from the start. Public support eroded only after people realized this. Like Iraq today, Vietnam was essentially seen by the local population as an occupation, never a popular or sustainable position. The way we saw it and the way the Vietnamese saw it was completely different, and, at the end of the day our intentions don't translate as well as our on the ground actions. That said, your position that the professional army is a way to free the government from the need for public support, and eliminate a touch-point for open rebellion, as some of the 60's and early 70's protest became, is unassailable.
The history of labels relations with their artists is not a happy one. You probably know that, as well. Certaainly music labels have far more costs than most outside observers or artists take note of,but the industry's record of transparency with regard to costs and royalties has been abysmal. Most artists sign contracts that are horribly tilted in favor of the music labels, and successful ones always seem to renegotiate these to fairer ones. But my overall point would be that the system needs to be devised to fairly compensate artists and producers, and I don't think the producers are up to the task. Artists would probably be unfair, as well.
I don't know if this is the right price, and the details need refinement, but in a word, yes. This is a good idea, but there needs to be a mechanism for artists to get adequately compensated. The notion that the RIAA members would get to decide how the artists got paid out of this is far more frightening than P2P. The record executives used to be thought of as close to mafiosi, but we now know they are much,much worse.
Not connecting to the Internet at all is even safer than dial up, and not even having a computer practically guarantees that you won't get spyware and malware. And what good is that? Your friend's advice is ludicrous. Use proper security. Don't cruise the net as root, or the admin user on a windows box. If you have to use Windows as your OS get a real firewall product, hardware even better than software, don't run unnecessary services, don't use IE unless its for the MS site itself. Don't use Outlook. Keep your system patched. Avoid sites like the free game and pr0n sites that are forever infesting computers. Get a useful book on security. Keep proper backups so that you can recover if all else fails, then relax and enjoy the experience. The time you'll save will pay for most of your outlays.
Nothing on Windows is a good idea :-). Conversely MySQL on anything is a fair idea, though I admit to a Postgres tendency. If any of that meant something to you, you are sick.
The beauty of the Internet is that it creates a reliable network for advanced services on top of an unreliable (or unknown reliability) network. In short the telcos want to do what the telcos always wanted to do, prove that packet switched networks are costly and unreliable by MAKING them so - VOIP works best when it isn't discriminated against, as does everything else. The telcos goal is to discriminate against services outside their control, they could work out a deal with other telcos to account for internetwork traffic by tracking the bits by network address. They would rather charge Skype for 'using the network' so that they can sell BellSouth branded VOIP, then set the router to slow Skype traffic unless Skype pays up. The real answer is to limit the telcos to infrastructure and prohibit them from offering services. They won't like this, because it isn't sexy . The old Al Gore metaphor (I know, it drove me crazy, too) of the Information Superhighway is actually apt. The Network is a public infrastructure, like a road or navigable river, and it needs to be 'regulated' like one, which means that companies who want to own and operate the public networks need to be restricted in how they can control them. Some think this is an unfair intrusion on the rights of ownership of these companies, who have all this shareholder money invested. They forget that until very recently the telcos were all guaranteed profits in exchange for the regulation that they were subjected to, and these networks were all paid for - every pole, switch, etc overseen by State PUCs. Shareholders had very little risk until the late 90's. Basically, until a couple of years ago these companies couldn't threaten to do what BellSouth is attempting. Most likely the moves are a signal that BellSouth, in its deregulated environment, is making poor decisions and is grabbing for whatever income it can, which means it will probably slowly sink. This isn't necessarily a good thing, or necessarily a bad - but a lot of damage to the public can be done.
My understanding is that I have paid for a specific download and upload rate from my provider. That rate allows whatever content I download - iTunes or Limewire, applications and product updates. My Understanding is that Apple pays for their connection to the internet, as well, and that there is some level of service ( in bits/sec) that they pay for. So where is this - "they didn't pay us" The transmission of the bits has been paid for, whether those bits were html pages or mp3s or program updates is irrelevant to the discussion. This is all the outcome of the FCC decision not to apply the telecom rules to the broadband market and to 'regulate' it as an information service. All of which ought to sway those who argue that regulation is unnecessary that their view is inadequate, regulation can be good or can be bad - it depends on the regulations, but the lack of regulation always gives the person or group in a power position the right to dictate terms. Some people may argue that you can always switch from BellSouth, but that isn't reality for most people - it is their only choice. If telcos have mispricedthe service, for me or for the content providers, then the price for a level of service should, and will, rise, but charging to tilt the playing field (in favor of the paying content providers) will raise the barrier to entry, and ultimately it will foreclose certain types of internet use, specifically shared, non-commercial applications.
Well, that is the crux of the issue isn't it? What rights are inalienable to you as a human, and what rights are yours because government GRANTS them to you. The American premise WAS that all rights were inherently yours, and that government was granted powers from the people. I guess somewhere we lost that understanding, and we are slowly succumbing to the idea that the people have only the rights that they have been granted. All of these rights exist only insofar as the constituted authority respects them. Next time you hear someone say "the Constitution doesn't protect a right to...", or "it's not a right, but a privledge...", you are listening to someone running rough-shod over your rights.
The RIAA does not want to stop the digital revolution, they want to own it. Law is the way to own it. If you survey the history of the Commons, and of the Government"s willingness to transfer the commons to a specific, well-financed, private interest ( thereby legally robbing the original owners of their rights and interests)you would be less sanguine about the matter. Microsoft and Google are happy to abet the Chinese government in censorship, and not consider it evil, either, so what makes you think that any of the ECONOMIC interests are going to resist DRM? Who is going to lobby Congress on our behalf? And the Supremes? - they haven't been the same since Diana Ross went solo. They could easily drop Betamax. You only need to lose a right once before it ceases to be a right.
All uses that are not explicitly covered by copyright law are "fair use" under the 9th Amendment. Wherein the rights NOT explicitly given to Congress or the President are reserved to the People themselves. No explicit grant is required.
Just where does US jurisdiction end? I plan on traveling to the belt of Orion next summer, will US law apply there?
Why was this post modded troll. It is so obviously a joke that the moderation is very questionable.
If you investigate Network Attached Storage you will find some solutions that are truly agnostic about the computer you connect with ( NAS solutions appear over tcp as a storage volume, without the need of a separate host computer) - if you get just a RAID enclosure you will need to attach it to a host computer. If you use a separate host computer you are better off with Linux as the OS (though you could use a Mac and still get the open-source advantages of SAMBA, NFS, what have you) and connect the Win box with SAMBA. NFS used to have a performance advantage over SAMBA, but that evaporated about four - five years ago.